"A movie has to be complete within itself; it can't just build off the first one or play variations. You know that thing in Temple of Doom where they revisit the shooting trick? ... That's what you don't want. And I feel that's what all of culture is becoming -- it's becoming that moment."

If I had to put my spin on it I'd say if you're at a steak house sitting down for dinner Raiders was your great cut of meat.

Doom was your side dish that complemented the main course...
for me I'd say some fancy cheesy garlic potatoes or something (everyone's taste is different so fill in your choice there).

Crusade was the dessert, probably a small scoop of vanilla ice cream, sweet not too heavy.

Then your sitting, waiting around to pay the check.
And just before you get your bill, the waiter says, " I'm terribly sorry... we forgot to serve you your dinner roll..." and at that moment he plops down a single slice of the plain white bread that was Crystal Skull...

...and from that, hypothetically if there were to be an Indy 5 (which there won't be) at this point the only thing that could redeem the foul up with the lingering dry taste of bread would be a small dinner mint on your way out.

Before you assume that everyone’s favorite Star Wars movie is The Empire Strikes Back, talk to Joss Whedon. The writer/director has long been on the record as saying that, while he likes and respects Empire, he thinks A New Hope is the superior film. “I still believe that even though The Empire Strikes Back is better in innumerable ways than Star Wars, Star Wars wins because you can’t end a movie with Han frozen in Carbonite,” Whedon said in the past. “That’s not a movie, it’s an episode.”

Whedon: Empire committed the cardinal sin of not actually ending. Which at the time I was appalled by and I still think it was a terrible idea.

EW: You think Empire had a bad ending?

Whedon: Well, it’s not an ending. It’s a Come Back Next Week, or in three years. And that upsets me. I go to movies expecting to have a whole experience. If I want a movie that doesn’t end I’ll go to a French movie. That’s a betrayal of trust to me. A movie has to be complete within itself, it can’t just build off the first one or play variations.

I'm a big fan of Joss' Firefly series, and I think he's missing the point that both Star Wars and Indy were both based upon series. That is, episodic in nature, and not necessarily complete in themselves.

The problem with KOTCS, however, as Indy's bro illuminated, is that it's just "ham-fisted". It sold the main character but neither the story nor the characters he interacts with. And the snake-rope gag... beyond corny to the point of 'did that really just happen?'

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo

Then your sitting, waiting around to pay the check.
And just before you get your bill, the waiter says, " I'm terribly sorry... we forgot to serve you your dinner roll..." and at that moment he plops down a single slice of the plain white bread that was Crystal Skull...

...and from that, hypothetically if there were to be an Indy 5 (which there won't be) at this point the only thing that could redeem the foul up with the lingering dry taste of bread would be a small dinner mint on your way out.

When you say this, why do I feel like you're telling me the Johnson's are now in charge?

And the snake-rope gag... beyond corny to the point of 'did that really just happen?'

I think a couple people take stuff like this too seriously. More seriously than 90% of people who watch and love all the Indy films. People love the humour in the Indy films. Part of their charm.
The snake bit was a big hit with the audiences when I saw it every time times. And last year, especially. I used to hate it and wonder why people were getting such a kick out of it - but I kind of like it now. Crusade is filled with even more humour than Kingdom, and some of it in both films make me cringe, as well. But people enjoy them so I can live with them.

Some jokes work for me - some don't. In the end I enjoy all the films and that's all that matters.

I think a couple people take stuff like this too seriously. More seriously than 90% of people who watch and love all the Indy films. People love the humour in the Indy films. Part of their charm.

Humour is an integral part of the series. Sometimes as subtle as a look in Indy's face, sometimes heavy with slapstick as in the fight with the mechanic; the hammer in TOD or Henry Sr. shooting the tail of their own 'plane.

Humour often flows naturally into the story, as with Indy nonchalantly drawing his gun on the Cairo Swordsman; realizing he has no gun the year before; evicting Vogel from the zeppelin to the awe of the passengers; or the "part-time" response to Mutt's "You're a teacher?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Jonesy

The snake bit was a big hit with the audiences when I saw it every time times. And last year, especially. I used to hate it and wonder why people were getting such a kick out of it - but I kind of like it now. Crusade is filled with even more humour than Kingdom, and some of it in both films make me cringe, as well. But people enjoy them so I can live with them.

Some jokes work for me - some don't. In the end I enjoy all the films and that's all that matters.

Maybe it requires multiple viewing to lessen the shock.

The first time I saw it I wanted to un-see it. The thought of Mutt going back to where he must have noticed a giant rat snake, rather than finding a vine or fallen branch. I imagined a wild snake of that size wouldn't want to co-operate, but attempt to constrict and bite either Mutt or Indy out of fear.

All burgers are good, Mick. Some are just better than others. That said, "Skull" was a sloppy one, indeed. It had a stale bun, the cheese was the stinky kind and was oozing over the sides, there was more cheese than meat and not enough zest in the half-grilled meat that was there. 'Twas a low-ranking burger but I ate it because it had "Indiana Jones" emblazoned on the plate.

(Dr. Gonzo's restaurant analogy was perfect so he inspired the above.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montana Smith

Dr.Jonesy's litany of the voting habits of the great unwashed - which, incidentally, demonstrates the inherent problems of democracy - portends the coming dictatorship of the proletariat.

The major point that Dr.Jonesy's litany DOESN'T demonstrate is the answer to this thread's titular question: "Why people are so hard on Indy IV?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy's brother

And I am well aware that Indy films aren't meant to be really deep or anything, but if the creators lack the self-awareness to sell the STORY, how can anyone be expected to take it seriously enough to suspend their disbelief through the whole film.

Perhaps you aren't aware of something else, brother. Suspending disbelief is about NOT taking a story/film seriously.

The major point that Dr.Jonesy's litany DOESN'T demonstrate is the answer to this thread's titular question: "Why people are so hard on Indy IV?"

True. I just figured the answer to the thread was thoroughly gone over already by the couple posters here who have their own complaints.

In all honesty there's always some people online who are hard on films I love and Temple/Kingdom are two of them. The Dark Knight Rises is also one of those films that a lot of people online hate, lately. Even though they're well received films - the internet provides an outlet for negative voices to dominate the conversation.

Back to Batman, it's a shame that Rises seems to have had an online backlash since last year with a vocal minority. But it's not like I don't have complaints, too.

In all honesty there's always some people online who are hard on films I love and Temple/Kingdom are two of them. The Dark Knight Rises is also one of those films that a lot of people online hate, lately. Even though they're well received films - the internet provides an outlet for negative voices to dominate the conversation.

It might have something to do with the films preceding them being hard acts to follow.

Raiders is generally highly regarded, and often referred to in elevated terms as a pinnacle of action adventure films.

The Dark Knight gave us Ledger's short-lived Joker and another antidote to Joel Schumacher.

Temple gave us Willie.

The Dark Knight Rises gave us politics and a physically diminished Bane.

Nevertheless I like Temple as much as Raiders, and Dark Knight Rises was a noble effort.

The answer to the question posed by this thread must have some connection to Raiders being a hard act to follow. Some viewers are equally as hard on Temple or Last Crusade as they are on KOTCS. The internet wasn't employed by the masses as a voice of protest in 1984 or 1989, though there is a thread somewhere here that links to internet responses made in the 1980s.

As youngsters we may have less expectation or demands than as adults, thereby sugar-coating or masking problems with films from our youth. Yet, even taking that into consideration, there are problems with KOTCS.

I love Sucker Punch, though the film came in for scathing criticism (23% on Rotten Tomatoes!) I genuinely believe that most viewers simply didn't understand it, or Zack Snyder's intentions for that matter. It wasn't the action film many people might have expected, and takes a few viewings to unpick its mysteries. It doesn't concern me that I'm in a minority in liking it, though it does impact on Hot Toys' sixth scale figure line - in that they're unlikely to make the other three girls!

Similarly, where KOTCS is concerned, there had to be a lot of expectation for #4. Some had been waiting for it since 1989. Not me. I never expected another one after Indy rode off into the Hatayan sunset, and I never wanted nor longed for a #4.

If anything I expected KOTCS to be bad, and overall it didn't disappoint in that regard.

Conversely, I expected Avatar to be bad due to the mega-hype surrounding it, and the unaesthetic appearance of the big blue Smurfs. However, once I forced myself to watch it I loved it. And Neytiri was kind of cute for a big blue alien.

As for the crazy democracy provided by the internet, see the following statistics:

It might have something to do with the films preceding them being hard acts to follow.

Raiders is generally highly regarded, and often referred to in elevated terms as a pinnacle of action adventure films.

I don't want to quote your entire post - but you make great points all the way through so kudos.

Sequels like Temple of Doom, Last Crusade, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and The Dark Knight Rises have extremely hard acts to follow. As sequels I think none of them came close to topping what came before them. But I'll be damned if I don't love them all anyway, you know?

Raiders is essentially the only classic of the Indy films. Tonally/stylistically/writing-wise/action - it excels to the top of cinema of the last 50 years. None of the others are ever mentioned in the same breath as cinema classics like Raiders is. And I'm good with that, surprisingly.

I don't want to quote your entire post - but you make great points all the way through so kudos.

Thank you, Dr.Jonesy!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Jonesy

Sequels like Temple of Doom, Last Crusade, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and The Dark Knight Rises have extremely hard acts to follow. As sequels I think none of them came close to topping what came before them. But I'll be damned if I don't love them all anyway, you know?

If you put them under the microscope they do pale next to Raiders. Yet, emotionally they're the same animal. For me at least, since I like all three equally as parts of the same story.

Which leads to this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Jonesy

Raiders is essentially the only classic of the Indy films. Tonally/stylistically/writing-wise/action - it excels to the top of cinema of the last 50 years. None of the others are ever mentioned in the same breath as cinema classics like Raiders is. And I'm good with that, surprisingly.

Raiders, while not being original in itself, managed through either skill, luck, or a combination of such, to usher in a new era of cinema that has oft been copied, but never really equalled.

Temple and Last Crusade are copies which, in the most brutal sense, exist only to cash in on the success of Raiders. Regardless of that, I think they worked out well, while adding a little variance to the formula.

Yet when I get to KOTCS, the copy of the copy of the copy of the almost original Raiders, I get the sense that the DNA got contaminated during it's 19 year storage period. It might not be an illegitimate child, but I think it might be the strange looking one playing the banjo on the front porch.

Not hated, not loved, but liked as one of family for the good points it does possess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mickiana

In a rereading the full force of this terrible analogy hit me, terrible in its lack of mercy! But it did make me laugh. I've done shutdown work in abattoirs before, so I know what the floors are like!

Location: In a canyon, opening up an Ark of whoopa## on some goosestepping morons

Posts: 161

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montana Smith

I was overly harsh!

Hahaha! Actually, I was thinking how that was some of the sweetest, nicest things you've said about Kingdom yet. I better not draw too much attention to it, before you change your mind. Btw, I think you hit the nail spot on, about why Raider's stands in a league all it's own.

The thing is, Sabo, you don't drone on & on & on about your aversion like some others do. Initial disappointment in 2008 is understandable but this thread's question was asked in the present tense. Taking that distinction into account, why are certain people "so hard on" Indy 4 almost 5 years later?

I can't offer up a premise that accounts for the perpetual stream of criticism some of the other members elect to present since I don't usually dwell on things I don't like. That said, times does not heal all wounds and bad movies do not age like wine suddenly becoming more palatable. The academic deconstruction that (still) goes on around here to make it... well, palatable to some cannot hide the fact that Crystal Skull is a sub-par entry in the Indiana Jones series. It, as you've said, gets "ate up" because of the Indiana Jones franchise tag.

So, in an attempt to offer a response to the principle question, because "they" have taste. The Beards & Ford laid down an entire list of, let's call 'em rules, with the original entries and then abandoned them almost entirely with the most recent "effort".

I can't offer up a premise that accounts for the perpetual stream of criticism some of the other members elect to present since I don't usually dwell on things I don't like. That said, times does not heal all wounds and bad movies do not age like wine suddenly becoming more palatable. The academic deconstruction that (still) goes on around here to make it... well, palatable to some cannot hide the fact that Crystal Skull is a sub-par entry in the Indiana Jones series. It, as you've said, gets "ate up" because of the Indiana Jones franchise tag.

So, in an attempt to offer a response to the principle question, because "they" have taste. The Beards & Ford laid down an entire list of, let's call 'em rules, with the original entries and then abandoned them almost entirely with the most recent "effort".

There are SOME folks in this world who do indeed prefer a dollar menu McDonalds burger to a gourmet 50 dollar hamburger...

Do the people who choose McDonalds over, say Spago, for reasons of taste have no taste?

Is it because they are just so used to McDonalds that they prefer it?

Is it because they really don't care and have lower standards?

Who knows... I don't think there is an answer to be found looking at it like that.

(But by the way, most folks consider the ones who prefer the dollar menu taste to the gourmet taste bat **** crazy)

Who said anything about preferring Skull over the others? Where are you seeing that? Are you saying if you like a good steak you can't enjoy a burger a McDonald's? Especially if you haven't ate in a while? Plus, I didn't ask you.